I've been reading from 'The Structure of Resurrection Belief' by Peter Carnley, former Archbishop of Perth and Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia. In it he upholds the possibility that the biblical accounts of the risen Jesus were actually 'heavenly visions' and he refuses to affirm the classic view of Jesus' bodily resurrection. It appears to me that Carnley believes in some sort of resurrection, but while he helpfully pushes past simplistic 'back to how he was before he died' thinking and points to the transformation that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15, he seems reluctant to own the fact of there being a real physical dimension to Jesus' resurrection (though I have to admit to not having read the entire book at this stage so perhaps he does somewhere).
Carnley's work has been discredited - not least by N.T. Wright who takes him to task in the opening of the magisterial 'Resurrection of the Son of God' - and its easy to point at places where has a low view of the authority of Scripture (and of the Bible writers themselves, eg. Luke inventing more material resurrection appearances so as to put himself a step above Paul). But on top of all this, its so sad that while he seems well-intentioned in much of what he writes, when it comes to discussing the beliefs of 'conservatives' in the church, he becomes more prickly such that its not just his views, but also his tone that is disappointing. (His more recent Reflections in Glass: Trends and Tensions in the Contemporary Anglican Church, is just plain tedious in its now standard liberal caricaturing of 'Sydney Anglicans'.)
Not only does he fail to promote orthodox, historical Christian teaching (what is 'progressive orthodoxy' anyway?), but by making his ambiguous views public, Carnley also makes it more difficult for members of local Anglican churches to give a plain account of their hope to any inquiring family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues. Believers are already perceived as fools in the eyes of the world for the straightforward proclamation of Christ crucified and risen. That perception is only compounded when their own church leaders won't promote the message with them!
But Carnley has retired now and I don't think the current Archbishop of Perth nor the current Primate have views akin to his.
Thoughts on Theology-in-Practice for Anglicans and Episcopalians - plus some other stuff.
Your last sentence is the most encouraging. Thanks Tim
ReplyDeleteChatting with a student of theology at the Melbourne College of Divinity, it was disappointing to hear how little credence they give to this central and divinely-inspired text, we call the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIt seems our church can't manage to walk the path most useful- it has a tendency to either preach morality of a biblical society, rather than a Godly society- or none at all!
Attending a church with my family, while on holidays, I was disheartened to read the notes that accompanied the texts, which was filled with "allegedly", "but in reality, probably..." and "was written down as a story to show..."
And when I visit a supposedly more Bible-centric church, inevitably they teach the virtues of the societies of the Bible, which were no less broken than our own.
But the core message is more important than any of the trappings, and it's disappointing to hear leaders (even past ones) sewing a message than clouds (or worse, denies) the crux of our faith, and hope.